I would define it here as any attempt to attack economic inequality at its source by putting the direct ownership of capital goods and resultant products in the hands of workers rather than with a separate ownership class.
That doesn’t work in the long term. What happens to a socialized factory when demand for the good it produces decreases? A capitalist factory would lay off some workers, but a socialized factory can’t do that, so winds up making uncompetitive products. The result is that the socialized factory will eventually get out-competed by capitalist factories. If you force all factories to be socialized, this will eventually lead to economic stagnation. (By the way, this is not the only problem with socialized factories.)
That doesn’t work in the long term. What happens to a socialized factory when demand for the good it produces decreases? A capitalist factory would lay off some workers, but a socialized factory can’t do that, so winds up making uncompetitive products. The result is that the socialized factory will eventually get out-competed by capitalist factories. If you force all factories to be socialized, this will eventually lead to economic stagnation. (By the way, this is not the only problem with socialized factories.)
Why not? Who says? Are we just automatically buying into everything the old American propagandists say now ;-)?
I’ve not even specified a model and you’re already making unwarranted assumptions. It sounds to me like you’ve got a mental stop-sign.
But you did refer to real world examples.